EdenOne: I have been involved in a few discussions here about beliefs and opinions. And while I agree that people, not beliefs, warrant respect, and robust arguments (to use Cofty's term) may be brought forward to deconstruct beliefs of others and that is absolutely legit, there's a line that is often crossed, which I find unacceptable, which is to question or attack the person's integrity or intelligence because of some belief or opinion that is held
I completely concur and your post made me think of something else I have noticed. I think most attacks on this board take a slightly different and more hidden form. You can tell a lot about a persons state of mind by how he or she describe how other people talk and this is also a very basic propaganda technique. For instance I could write:
EdenOne says: "I have been involved in a few discussions here about beliefs and opinions..."
which is neutral or I could write:
EdenOne complains: "I have been involved in a few discussions here about beliefs and opinions..."
In this way I introduced the idea that you are emotionally perturbed as well as the idea that your argument is not based on reason but emotions. You are the complaining sort of person who will complain no matter what a reasonable person might say.
Similarly, other prefixes like: rambled, mumbled, blurted-out etc. etc. can be used consistently with regards to what other people say. The other person must never be allowed to simple: say, reason, argue, point out or simply make the point that (...).
Another common way to do this is that, before responding to anything, you first make comments like: "I read your muddled, contradictory and poorly argued post and you did not consider..."
where the idea the post is contradictory or poorly argued is introduced without evidence. Of course the post might be, but a more honest way to expose this is to point out the arguments which are muddled.
Or one can introduce the idea the other person does not understand what is plainly written (without evidence) using (presumably) mind-reading by simply saying: "You do not understand the argument" or "its not my fault you can't read" or "i am not going to hold your hands if you cant follow a simple point" or "it's not my fault you dont understand simple words" without pointing out what the argument is or where the misunderstanding lies. These techniques can be used together by doing a line-by-line replay where the techniques are used after every other sentence.
Of course saying these things are sometimes warranted when the other person really do appear not to understand simple words or deliberately misunderstand words which have been clearly defined, but if used systematically and before trying to correct the misunderstanding it will derail any discussion, it is a basic propaganda technique. I have in the past been somewhat guilty of these crimes with certain posters, and it was after noticing it in others that I realized I was doing myself a great disservice and i was really being obnoxious.
